QUESTION4
3.6.4 KAMWANGAMALU'S PROPOSAL OF 'CODE-IN-BETWEEN'
thereby re-negotiating the distance between them i.e. increasing the distance between them, as he is reluctant to tellhimthe story. In addition, by responding negatively to P3's call for a new RO set, P2 is inadvertently displaying his authority or superiority as he knows the story. PI, in example(ii)also makes a marked choice by switching to English to bring an end to the discussion as she disagrees and is annoyed with her listeners' points of view. In so doing, she asserts her authority and increases the distance between them.
this out well. In addition, Zulu as a ''we-code'' is also evident in the lessons ofthe control group.
Recordings of lessons in the control group illustrate how the teacher feels excluded from comments made by the pupils, and as a result of not understanding what they are saying, she chooses to either(i)ignore it,(ii)attempt tobea part of it (see examplevii)or(iii)when the class is disrupted, reprimand the pupils (see example V (i) and(ii).
Secondly, in the context of my study, English might be perceived, not as a "we-code" or "they- code", but rather as a "code-in-between" that enables both teachers and pupils tofulfillvarious social and pedagogical goals. This is particularly so with the control group where the teacher uses only English to teach her pupils. English might be perceived as the "code-in-between" because English is a common language between teacher and pupils who are familiar with each other.
English as the "code-in-between" is an appropriate description ofnot only the interaction between English monolingual teacher and bilingual pupils but also bilingual teacher and pupils, and pupil- pupil interactions. This is because using English in the ESL literature classroom is neither to communicate with strangers nor is it for personalized activities, rather it is tofulfillmore formal, pedagogical as well as social functions.
Thirdly, in the context ofmy study, the choice ofCS presents a more complex role in thatitmight be perceived as a triadic code: as a "they-code" to English monolinguals, as a "we-code" to English-Zulu bilinguals when in the presence of English monolinguals, and as "code-in-between"
by code-switchers when their English monolingual counterparts are not present. In this study,"code-in-between" is a particularly appropriate description of CS that occurs by the experimental group and by pupils of the control group when engaged in group work.
To conclude, my study supports Kamwangamalu's view that inlieu of the complex situationin South Africa, and indeed, the situation in the educational domain, one needs to examine the context ofthe situation in order to determine which code i.e. ''we-code'', ''they-code'' or "code-in- between", best qualifies the linguistic choice. My study clearly shows that no longer can English be perceived as the ''we...,code'' by English first language speakers and the ''they-code'' for English second language speakers - English has become an integral part of all teachers and pupils irrespective ofthe variety spoke. Hence, "code-in-between" is a more appropriate description of English in the domain of the school, and no doubt, in other formal and even informal domains as well. In addition, this study shows that whether a language qualifies as ''we-code'', ''they-code'' or "code-in-between" is dependent not only on the type of social goals one wishes to achieve (Kamwangarnalu 1998:278) in a given speech situation, but also on the type ofpedagogical goals one wishes to achieve. This is evident in my discussion of the pedagogical functions of CS such as for explanation, clarification, emphasis, reinforcement, providing content information etc.
3.6.5 GORDONWELLS''RECIPROCALINTERACfION MODEL OF LEARNING':
As I have also discussed in chapter 2, 2.4, the thrust of Wells' Reciprocal Interaction Model of Learning is that learners learn a language best and acquire knowledge through the actual use of language when they engage in meaningful interaction with adults (in my context, teachers) and their peers. To recapitulate, the essential principles that underlie this theory are that the communicative intent of the speaker is of greater importance than the grammatical construction ofsentences; that teachers should be facilitators ofknowledge and that they should provide ample opportunity for learners for collaboration and negotiation; and that optimal use oflearners' NL
shouldbemade in the classroom (Wells 1981; 1998; 1999; Wells 1985; Measures& Wells 1997).
What follows is a discussion ofmy data gathered from recordings oflessons, in terms of each of these principles.
Firstly, the tenet that Wells' model focuses on function rather than form is also one of the principles that underlie Gumperz's Interactional Model. Hence, the reader is referred to the discussion of this principle in this section of the chapter, 3.6.2, examples 11 and Ill. I would however, like to add that one cannot completely ignore grammatical structure altogether; there are times when the choice ofvocabulary, pronunciation and syntax might distort the illocutionary force of the reader. Consider the following examples where the teacher corrects pupils' pronunciation and choice of vocabulary:
.."~
Xl. LESSON ON 'THE SUIT' [CONTROL GROUP, SAMPLE APPENDIX 3b]:
P (reads) "Only once, he got one excrutiatingl"
T (corrects pmunciation)...excruciating.
Xll LESSON ON 'OUT, OUT-'[CONTROL GROUP, SAMPLE APPENDIX 3e]:
(i) T Why do you think he laughs at such a serious accident?
P He was shocked. He couldn't hear the pain.
T Yes, he was shocked. You don't hear pain, you
P feel
T Yes, you feel pain. He's shocked and for that moment he doesn't feel the pain or realize what's happened. Yes?
(ii) T Yes. He doesn't realize how bad the accident is.
P He was soft.
T Not soft, shocked.
P He was shocked.
In examples XI and XII (i), the mispronunciation and incorrect use of verb respectively, do not distort the meaning of the utterances. Hence, even though the teacher corrects pupils' pronunciation and use of verb, the intended meaning of each of their utterances is accurately perceived. However, in example XII (ii), the pupil uses a completely different word "soft" instead of "shocked" to describe the boy's reaction to the injury. Although the teacher understood the pupil's intended meaning because of shared knowledge of the poem, in other contexts such an utterance could lead to misUnderstanding. In addition, ifthe word "soft" was provided as a written response, it would not beaccepted. Hence, while the focus should be on function rather than form, grammar cannot be ignored altogether where it is likely to cause distortion of communicative intent.
In investigating whether teachers are facilitators or transmitters of knowledge and whether they provide opportunity for learners for collaboration and negotiation, my data reveals that for the most part, especially in the experimental group, teachers are transmitters of knowledge. In the experimental group the teacher does almost all ofthe talking and transmitting ofinfonnation. This is also true, to a lesser extent, in the control group as well. However in the control group, the teacher does provide opportunities for collaboration and negotiation of meaning by asking provocative questions and organizing small group activity. In so doing she was able to fulfillboth pedagogical and socio-emotional goals, which Wells'(1998) maintains are essential for the well being ofthe 'whole' person. Pedagogically, pupils, in small groups, were given opportunities to create summaries, recreate events of the literary text studied, discuss characterization, present multiple points of view and distribute ideas. This is facilitated through literary texts which Wells (1985) considers to be an excellent source of collaborative activities. Socio-emotionally, by responding to provocative questions (see sample appendix 3a ), through interaction with each
other, pupils are able to negotiate social, moral and emotional issues such as responsibility of parenthood, responsibility in relationships, taking responsibility for one's actions, considering the well being of others in relationships and so on. In so doing, through a discussion of book characters, learners' own social and moral values are being shaped and they grow in maturity to become better citizens of their country.
Finally, the principle that focuses on the use oflearners' NL in the classroomhas been discussed extensively in this chapter, 3.5.3 (forms and functions of CS in the classroom) andwilltherefore not be discussed again at this point. To conclude, my data shows that whether pupils are given opportunity for collaborative work is dependent on the teacher. The teaching ofliterature fosters such activity and should therefore be exploited. The danger of group work however is that, as evident in the recording ofone group session (sample appendix 3a), pupils speak almost entirely in the NL so that very little practice of English takes place.